NotHereToPlayGames

I've never had any issues with 360Chrome not connecting to the internet. The only problem I ever encountered was with first-launch-after-reboot-or-hibernate and ONLY IF taking FALSE INFO from this very forum in regards to specific dll files and only on XP x64. Ignore that FALSE INFO and KEEP the specific dll files that was "sworn up and down to remove" by non-XP members of this very forum and everything worked flawlessly for me. dll files that I do not need in Win10 or Win11 x64 but *WAS A MUST TO KEEP* for me when running XP x64. Again, only affected first launch after a reboot or resume from hibernate. And only affected XP x64.

Go to this page -- https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/:where If the "output" pane of the "try it" section is empty/blank, then your first hunch is correct and lack of :where() support is your issue.

There are only three "requirements" for Win11 that I am aware of. TPM, Secure Boot, and 8+ GB RAM. RUFUS removes all three. Legal and legit OS by all metrics. Just modifies the installation to install on systems not meeting all three of those "requirements". (edit: though I'm not sure why a Win11 requirements post was placed in a Win10 ESU thread, but regardless, use RUFUS to remove those ARBITRARY "requirements", be it Win10 or Win11)

Just a hunch, but you (Antonino) are very likely replying to a "spambot" (RDS).

There are some good AI-blocking lists for uBlock. Unsure if they would remove what you are encountering. Me? I haven't used them. I just use custom style sheets to hide the dumb AI content. But I also use custom style sheets to also hide YouTube "comments". So we are clearly two birds of a different feather.

Sounds like an oddly "modern" metric to gauge a web site's usability. Not for me, but yeah, "to each their own".

No firsthand experience. Supermium was never very stable on my computers. But as @jumper pointed out, I'm pretty sure that the developer already provides rebased .dll's. Haven't visited that GitHub project in a very long time so no clue where they are located. I've actually erased/deleted/permanently-moved-on from all of my XP "experiments", be they Supermium, Thorium, Pale Moon, New Moon, you name it, they ***ALL*** were nothing but "headaches". I obviously keep my own 360Chrome's around, but seldom are they ever launched. And the only Serpent that is reliable for my needs is a VERY OLD version - new updates only introduce new problems, nothing but "headaches".

Apologies again, but I'm afraid I'm not the person to ask. I ditched XP roughly a year or so ago and my life has IMPROVED a million-trillion-zillion times a million-trillion-zillion ever since! XP was holding me back !!! It's up to you to decide if all of the time spent to do things on XP is a waste of your time or not. Sorry. XP, to me, is like Linux, neat and novel, a good HOBBY, but nothing more than a HOBBY.

Apologies, but no. This rabbit hole is far too deep for me to get pulled in any further. Sorry. You will need to use Supermium and "let go" of the notion that a v86 Chrome engine can be made to do whatever you throw at it.

You're not going to like the answer. You need something like PROXOMITRON to change ":autofill" to "-webkit-autofill" for any version of Chrome older than v110 for the below javascript - But that's ony the FIRST HURDLE. Once you get past that, the error console will fill up with tons of more errors to overcome one by one. ie, once you resolve the required -webkit-autofill for Chrome versions older than v110, the paypal site then loads TWO captcha's that 360Chrome cannot pass (especially in XP). One from www.recaptcha.net and one from hcaptcha.com.

You would have to provide the web site where you are not able to register. I highly doubt that the autofill error in the console is the root cause for the inability to register.

Unsure of your real end-in-mind. If it is for your browser to autofill usernames and passwords, this is what I use -- https://www.crx4chrome.com/crx/328301/

The test also works with Chrome v126 and Supermium is now at v132. The test would have "started" working at some version between v97 and v126 - feel free to try each and every one of those versions to track it down specifically. Generally speaking, you cannot use javascript (querySelectorAll) to affect pseudo-elements (:after, :before, :checkmark, :placeholder, etc) or to affect pseudo-classes (:autofill, :active, :modal, :fullscreen, :enabled, :disabled, :nth-child, :checked, etc). You could try "::autofill" instead of ":autofill" (two colons instead of one), but I suspect that won't solve the javascript code using querySelectorAll to hunt down a pseudo-class.

Your issue is with the developer.mozilla.org "test". findLastIndex does not require a polyfill in Chrome v97 and that "test" does not work in Chrome v97. It most likely does not work in v98, v99, v100, v101... et cetera... And doesn't "start to work" until who knows where. Again, Chrome v97 wholly and fully implements findLastIndex and even v97 cannot 'pass' that "test".

Awesome! When I attempted, I could not figure out how to apply ungoogled patches. Will you also be attempting ungoogled patches?

Why does that even matter? Why interject social class into this thread? I don't understand that at all. Me personally, I could care less what poor people deal with, they should be happy with what they do have and not think they are somehow "entitled" to the things they do not have. Do "poor people" complain about the tinny sound from their "Obama Phone" and think some government-subsidized program should upgrade their Free Cheese to Dolby? All of my sound is Dolby 6.1. The equipment is capable of 7.1, but I only wired for 6.1. But come on, I'm seriously failing to see the issue with Chrome and Dolby. Carry on, no further discussion required, we've both said our side.

We had Dolby CDs also. Had laserdisc and betamax when very few of even my aunts and uncles at the time ever even heard of them. I kind of agree AND disagree. Yeah, both at the same time! One of my biggest pet peeves is folks that use their d#mn mobile phone on "speakerphone". I have a work office with a door and I have no problems whatsoever in SLAMMING THAT DOOR to make a point when lab techs are on "speakerphone". The "sound" out of those d#mn mobile phones MAKES MY EARS BLEED just thinking about it! "Chrome" is *NOT* how true audiophiles get their audio !!! It just isn't, nor is it really (in my opinion) "realistic" to think that "theater sound" should somehow emanate from a laptop speaker.

Not to split hairs, but Dolby didn't really exist for home audio in '91 and it didn't migrate to the computer industry until several years later. I don't really remember when it hit movie theaters. I recall the movie "Top Gun" being heavily marketed for "3D sound", but forget what year and if it was even called Dolby. edit - side note: https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/478739-netflix-plus

Agreed! Even way back at 50's version numbering, I remember it running ALL NIGHT LONG. I only tried it once, but that once was enough to know "not for me" and to be *PATIENT* in waiting for those that do share their compiles and not expect them to keep up with the latest-and-greatest just for the sake of it being latest-and-greatest. I wonder of something exists (I'm sure it does) for what BANKING INSTITUTIONS regard as "milestone releases" for Firefox and Chromium? ie, BANKING INSTITUTIONS don't throw up a "your browser is no longer supported" for EACH AND EVERY VERSION, they wait *SEVERAL* versions and even then don't force their user to the latest-and-greatest.

Bummer. Thanks for trying. Chrome was in the 50's version numbering when I last tried to compile.

My focus has basically been solely with Brave of late. I am *NOT* a fan of integrated/embedded "ad blockers" but it seems that most Chromium Forks are taking that route. At least until all the MV2 vs MV3 dust settles. One of the strangest telemetry connections that took some time in isolating is Brave's Enable CNAME uncloaking flag! DISABLING that cut down on a ton of telemetry connections! Sure, the "uncloaking" sounds like a nifty tool, but not at the expense of sending *ALL* of my browsing history to godknowswhere! No history to hide, per se, but browsers should just browse and nothing more.

I think MSFN could benefit from a Compile Chromium thread/tutorial. I myself have "successfully" compiled Chromium but I've had to take bits and pieces from four (or more, don't recall now) different "tutorials" found online. I ended up with something that would "launch" and "browse", but in the end I didn't really "trust" my own work and sent it all to the Recycle Bin.

Chrome/Chromium's "original" chrome.dll is not compressed. This seems to be standard. Compressing DLLs directly can have negative consequences, such as increased address space fragmentation, disabled asynchronous transfers, introduces run-time overhead of decompression, among other issues. A compressed DLL would also make the program unusable on systems with disabled page files (not uncommon), per several stackoverflow/reddit Q&A's which I lead the followers to research and find themselves as this kind of goes "far and wide".

Agreed. I do the same on my home computers. I call them "Hobby Hacks". I'm not smart enough to be a "hacker", but I've always found ways to "quasi-hack" and get things to work. edit - I spent all weekend "hacking" an abandonware piece of software that had the arrow key hotkeys defined as "Left, Right, up, Down". That lowercase U bugged the sh&t out of me! Took all weekend, but I found and fixed!

ps - I'm not saying to "publicly" inform the creator of the wrapper. I do know how some folks fear such public disclosures as some sort of "I can't say this publicly because I don't want Google to know, I don't want Google using this knowledge and blocking us from doing this." My view on that, Google already knows! It's only our own ego that thinks we are smarter then them!